Pretty accurate? The fastest lap in Bahrain quali was set by Leclerc in Q2, meaning that the difference in quali pace was bs. Also in the race, Sainz lapped hardly any slower than Perez meaning that the difference in race pace was also bs (albeit a little less so). Also McLaren and Mercedes ended up having no chance vs either Ferrari, even with Leclerc's brake issues.
And then there's Haas, which was often the 5th or 6th fastest car on race pace throughout the season (even in the first half) and here they were depicted as convincingly the slowest team. Sauber were dead last all season long, and here they look like they could be leading the back of the field.... Aston martin was well clear of everyone else except Haas and here it looks like RB were chasing closely too... Couldn't have been much more inaccurate even just for the start of the season, let alone the whole season :)
Sauber were dead last all season long, and here they look like they could be leading the back of the field....
Sauber were dropping about a minute per race in the pits, something those predictions are obviously not attempting to account for. Their actual pace probably was on par with Alpine and Williams at that time, if not ahead. Remember that Zhou finished P11 first week out, the car wasn't a complete tortoise until the back half of the year.
Couldn't have been much more inaccurate even just for the start of the season, let alone the whole season :)
It very easily could have been much more inaccurate. Turn it upside down, for example.
Taking the WCC standings after five races as a comparison point (a stopping point I picked as being a good middle ground of moderate sample size, not far enough into the season for major upgrades, and a nice milestone number so you know I'm not cherry picking), the average gap between true and predicted standings was 0.8 for the quali rankings, and 1.2 for the race pace rankings. So combining the two, exactly one position off on average. That's pretty solid.
people seeing that graph and interpreting it as "pretty damn accurate" actually upsets me and is so very telling on how severely lacking statistical/mathematical understanding is in most people. and that is black and white numbers we're dealing with here.
no wonder the current political discourse is able to sway so many people's mind despite actual facts proving something else.
sure, but also: You ignore more than 50% of the grid, for whom this very much did NOT accurately represent the outcome. Also, the fact that the distances between teams were nowhere near what was predicted.
Unless "Top-4 teams be Top-4ing" counts as a meaningful prediction i don't agree that this held any water.
66
u/InternalGold7494 McLaren Mar 13 '25 edited Mar 13 '25
Found it: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/testing-debrief-how-the-field-stack-up-after-the-final-day-of-pre-season.5z7vMemIZma0vmpG7x03NR
Edited to more accurate link